Namely that: Seemingly taking a page from the recent Star Trek movie, the show will involve a bunch of Rebels using time travel to go back to try and stop Darth Vader from ever existing. Whether this means trying to murder Anakin as a child or just stop him from turning to the Dark Side, I don't know. Could potentially erase the original movies and form an alternate timeline like the JJ Abrams movies... but I personally think that it's more likely that it's going to revolve around the Rebels trying and failing to change the future, or through their actions causing Vader to be created purely by their attempts to stop it from occuring. Or something.

Personally I think that this could be interesting, as although I've seen the original films I'm not exactly invested in the franchise to the extent I am in, say, Doctor Who. Or any given Gerry Anderson series.

It does amuse me that they took one of the most iconic villains in film history and not only cast the younger versions of him with TWO very bad to average actors, and then had him come across in the writing as a really annoying and whiny person.

Though, on the plus side, Natalie Portman and Kiera Knightley are awesome, and the focus should really have been more on them. Even though the idea of an elected 14 year old queen was kind of stupid.

Also SLJackson was awesome too, as was Ewan McGregor. In fact, just have it the Portman, Knightley, Jackson, MacGregor show, and it'd be fine.

I don't know...the prequel certainly explains where Luke got his whininess from -- it's genetic! And it is kinda interesting to realize Vader is throwing little temper tantrums throughout the original rather than being the stone-cold badass I grew up thinking he was.

That said, I'd gladly trade his canon fall to the Darkside for...anything...more interesting and plausible =.=.

I think writing lil' Vader as a whiny kid / emo teen was a huge mistake because it was so hard to sympathize him at any point in his life during a 7 hour set of movies. If Luke had turned to the dark side in Return of the Jedi, there would have been shock and a real sense of loss, because he a Good Kid.

Tragedy works best when the hero suffers a fall from grace. When the "hero" starts unlikeable and just gets more annoying with time, it's really hard to build sympathy. In fact, it's a relief when he finally gets dipped in lava, if only because you know that his whiny, self-absorbed, entitled, poorly-acted voice is about to be upgraded to James. Earl. Fucking Jones.

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I agree that Anakin's motivations and actions were completely unsympathetic.

As much as I mock Luke for being whiny, he's my absolute favorite character in the trilogy, because of his development. He feels like a full character because he's got believable flaws and an actual personality in addition to being a really good, noble person. Rather than the tragedies of his life breaking him, like they did Anakin, he instead shines. That's awesome.

The prequel could have been a juxtaposition of Anakin's fall to Luke's redemption of Vader. Instead it just went through the motions of showing Anakin's fall from grace, rather than actually making it weighty and meaningful. To me, that's the real tragedy of the prequels. They had all the elements they needed to be something fantastic, but they just weren't.

So basically I wouldn't have a problem with Anakin being emo and whiny if there were more to him. Pettiness is a really interesting trait, especially in an otherwise sympathetic character, and I'd have loved to see the prequel as a study of a good-hearted person getting broken down by the cruelty and sorrow around him.

Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.